Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Dec 31;16(12):e0248545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248545

Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa

Michelle G Pedler 1, J Mark Petrash 1, Prem S Subramanian 1,2,3,4,*
Editor: Francesco Lolli5
PMCID: PMC8719688  PMID: 34971554

Abstract

Introduction

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) outflow has been demonstrated along nasal lymphatics via olfactory nerve projections; flow may be increased by stimulating lymphatic contractility using agents such as noradrenaline and the thromboxane A2 analog U46619. Lymphatics elsewhere in the body show increased contractility upon exposure to the prostaglandin F2alpha analog isoprostane-8-epi-prostaglandin. We investigated the ability of ophthalmic prostaglandin F2alpha analogs to increase CSF outflow when applied to the nasal mucosa by inhalation.

Methods

Latanoprost (0.1, 0.5, or 1mg/ml), bimatoprost (0.3 or 3mg/ml), travoprost (0.04 or 0.4mg/ml), latanoprostene bunod (0.24 or 2.4mg/ml), tafluprost (0.25 or 2.5mg/ml), or control vehicle (10% DMSO) was administered to awake adult C57B/6 mice by nasal inhalation of 2μl droplets. Multiday dosing (daily for 3 days) of latanoprost also was evaluated. A total of 81 animals were studied including controls. General anesthesia was induced by injection, and fluorescent tracer (AlexaFluor647-labelled ovalbumin) was injected under stereotaxic guidance into the right lateral ventricle. Nasal turbinate tissue was harvested and homogenized after 1 hour for tracer detection by ELISA and fluorometric analysis.

Results

Inhalation of latanoprost 0.5mg/ml and 1mg/ml led to a 11.5-fold increase in tracer recovery from nasal turbinate tissues compared to controls (3312 pg/ml vs 288 pg/ml, p<0.001 for 0.5mg/ml; 3355 pg/ml vs 288 pg/ml, p<0.001 for 1mg/ml), while latanoprost 0.1 mg/ml enhanced recovery 6-fold (1713 pg/ml vs 288 pg/ml, p<0.01). Tafluprost 0.25mg/ml and bimatoprost 0.3mg/ml showed a modest (1.4x, p<0.05) effect, and the remaining agents showed no significant effect on tracer recovery. After 3 days of daily latanoprost treatment and several hours after the last dose, a persistently increased recovery of tracer was found.

Conclusions

Prostaglandin F2alpha analogs delivered by nasal inhalation resulted in increased nasal recovery of a CSF fluorescent tracer, implying increased CSF outflow via the nasal lymphatics. The greatest effect, partially dose-dependent, was observed using latanoprost. Further studies are needed to determine the efficacy of these agents in reducing ICP in short and long-term applications.

Introduction

Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is produced in the lateral ventricles by active transport across the cell membranes of epithelial cells lining the arachnoid villi and is dependent upon Na/K ion channel activity [1]. CSF then flows freely through the ventricles, fills several cisterns as well as sulci along the surface of the brain, and is maintained in homeostasis via reabsorption through several putative pathways [1], including via arachnoid granulations [2]. CSF also is present in the meningeal coverings of the cranial nerves that exist before they exit the cranial compartment [2], and CSF also can flow along the most proximal portion of spinal root ganglia and nerves [3]. Studies demonstrate that normal CSF outflow occurs along these nerves and nerve roots, although the relative importance of each pathway in the maintenance of normal CSF turnover remains controversial [1]. CSF movement along the olfactory nerves through the cribriform plate and into the nasal lymphatic system comprises a major outflow pathway in experimental animals, and it may take on greater importance when intracranial pressure (ICP) is elevated [47]. Because extracranial lymphatic outflow is not dependent upon venous sinus pressures, CSF flow along cranial nerves may not be affected when cerebral venous outflow is diminished, and increased CSF flow may compensate for reduced absorption via the arachnoid granulations [8].

Current treatment strategies for disorders of elevated ICP use medications to reduce CSF production by inhibition of carbonic anhydrase (acetazolamide, methazolamide), diuresis (same agents as well as furosemide), and/or sodium transport inhibition (furosemide) [9]. No medications are available that will increase CSF outflow, and the olfactory lymphatics provide an accessible target for such a treatment [10]. Although lymphatic channels are often thought to carry fluid passively into the venous system, increased lymphatic contractility can be induced pharmacologically. Experiments with lower extremity lymphatic stimulation have demonstrated improvement in peripheral edema with use of a variety of pharmacologic agents, such as the prostaglandin F2 alpha analogue isoprostane 8-epi-prostaglandin F2alpha (PGF2alpha) [11]. CSF pressure monitoring in sheep after intranasal delivery of pharmacologic agents that may affect lymphatic contractility suggests that CSF outflow facility may be manipulated in this manner [10]. PGF2alpha analogues have been used clinically for decades, and their safety and tolerability when applied to the conjunctival surface is well-studied [12]. We therefore hypothesized that commercially available PGF2alpha analogues, widely used in the treatment of open angle glaucoma, might increase CSF outflow through the nasal lymphatics in an animal model and sought to directly demonstrate this effect.

Methods

Animal use protocols were approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of the University of Colorado School of Medicine (approval #00943). Adult male and female C57/BL6 mice (approximately 6 weeks of age) were housed at 22°C (72°F), 5 mice of the same sex per standard ventilated cage, with a 14 hour light/ 10 hour dark cycle. They were were provided access to water, a commercial lab animal diet, and bedding material ad libitum. Health and welfare were checked daily by a veterinary technician with the supervision of a licensed veterinarian. Animals were acclimated for 1 week before all experiments. Commercially available PGF2-alpha analogues used in the treatment of glaucoma were selected for evaluation; these included latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, latanoprostene bunod, and tafluprost. Initial experiments were conducted with topical ophthalmic preparations, and pharmaceutical grade drug also was obtained and placed into solution for use in a more concentrated form. Agents were solubilized in DMSO and diluted in normal saline, with 10% DMSO serving as vehicle control.

For single inhalation trials, awake animals were administered intranasal vehicle (10% DMSO) or drug solution (total 8 μl) by placing droplets (2 μl) of liquid at the nares using a micropipette and allowing the animal to inhale the liquid spontaneously [13]. Animals were treated in a random order to limit confounding. Anesthesia with ketamine and xylazine then was administered via intraperitoneal injection, and anesthetized animals were placed within a stereotaxic apparatus. For multiday studies, intranasal drug administration was performed on awake animals in the same fashion daily, and animals were monitored per standard protocol by the veterinary technician; approximately 6 hours after the third daily dose was given, animals were anesthetized and positioned as above. A midline incision was created along the scalp, and the right lateral ventricle was targeted with placement of a 26 ga needle to a depth of 3 mm into the brain at a position 1 mm lateral and 0.3 mm anterior to bregma [14]. A 5 μl intraventricular injection of fluorescent tracer (AlexaFluor647-ovalbumin solution) was delivered at a rate of 100 nl/sec using a Hamilton syringe and an electric pump. Animals remained anesthetized for the 1 hour recovery period post injection and were then euthanized with a lethal overdose of ketamine followed by secondary cervical dislocation. Nasal turbinates were harvested, and tissue extracts were analyzed by ELISA in a masked fashion.

The statistical plan was developed with an expectation that tracer recovery would act as a linear variable. Sample size calculations were not informative, and group sizes were chosen empirically. No data points were excluded. Statistical analyses were conducted with Stata (College Station, TX) for two-tailed Student’s t-tests, and ANOVA RM with Dunnet’s post hoc analysis were performed with Graphpad Prism (Graphpad Software Inc, La Jolla, CA, USA) for comparisons between groups. All asterisks are compared to 10% DMSO vehicle control unless otherwise indicated with a line bar. Asterisks refer to p values where *p<0.05, **p<0.01 or ***p<0.001.

Results

The experimental technique was validated by assessing anatomic placement of the tracer into the lateral ventricle (Fig 1) and by recovery of fluorescent tracer from nasal mucosa after ventricular injection in the absence of intranasal treatment. Timepoints for tissue harvest were selected based on increased recovery at 60 min versus 30 min, with later harvest raising concern for potential contamination of specimens by hematogenous CSF absorption of tracer and recirculation throughout the tissues via arterial flow. Other tissues (spleen, liver) from injected animals did not demonstrate significant levels of ovalbumin tracer relative to uninjected animals after 60 minutes.

Fig 1. Evaluation of fluorescent tracer injection.

Fig 1

A. Photomicrograph (20X magnification) of brain harvested after stereotaxic injection of labelled ovalbumin into the right lateral ventricle showing localized signal within the ventricle (asterisk) and along the injection track (arrow). B. Section from a control, uninjected animal demonstrating no staining in the ventricle (asterisk).

A total of 67 animals were studied using a scaled dosing technique in which each prostaglandin analog was evaluated at its commercial ophthalmic concentration as well as one or two more concentrated levels (either 5x or 10x). When inhaled in their commercial ophthalmic formulations, both bimatoprost and tafluprost showed an approximately 1.5 fold increase in nasal tracer recovery relative to vehicle-treated controls (Fig 2, p<0.05). Neither drug showed a significant effect when used at a higher concentration; additionally, neither travoprost nor latanoprostene bunod demonstrated the ability to increase nasal tracer recovery above control levels at any concentration used (Fig 2). Intranasal delivery of latanoprost resulted in a semi dose-dependent increase in tracer recovery from the nasal mucosa after 60 min, with approximately 10-fold increased levels observed relative to control animals when 0.5 mg/ml or 1 mg/ml solution was used (Fig 3, p<0.001 compared to control). The standard ophthalmic dose, 0.1 mg/ml, resulted in approximately 6-fold increased tracer recovery (Fig 3, p<0.01 vs control).

Fig 2. Fluorometric analysis of nasal turbinate homogenates after prostaglandin F2alpha agonist bimatoprost, latanoprostene bunod, tafluprost, and travoprost inhalation and ventricular tracer injection.

Fig 2

Slightly enhanced tracer recovery relative to controls was seen with the lower doses of bimatoprost and tafluprost. Error bars denote SEM. Asterisks indicate p<0.05 relative to controls.

Fig 3. Comparison of the effect of latanoprost intranasal application to other PGF2alpha analogues in the recovery from nasal turbinates of fluorescently tagged ovalbumin after CSF injection after single dose application of each drug.

Fig 3

All statistical comparisons are relative to controls except as indicated by the horizontal bar comparing 1 mg/ml latanoprost with 0.25 mg/ml tafluprost; * = p<0.05, ** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001.

An additional 14 animals were studied several hours after receiving the third of 3 daily inhaled doses of latanoprost (either 0.1, 0.5, or 1 mg/ml). A nearly 3-fold increase in tracer recovery relative to controls (p<0.05) was observed, with no statistically significant difference observed amongst the 3 doses (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Evaluation of tracer recovery from the nasal turbinates of animals treated with daily doses of latanoprost over 3 days (4 animals treated with 0.1 mg/ml; 5 each with the other two doses).

Fig 4

Nasal turbinates were isolated 1 hour after ventricular tracer injection and between 7 and 9 hours after the final latanoprost dose was given intranasally; * = p<0.01 relative to control.

Discussion

In this study, latanoprost showed a dose-dependent ability to increase recovery of a CSF-based fluorescent tracer substance from the nasal mucosa of experimental animals shortly after intranasal inhalation. A lesser effect was observed with tafluprost and bimatoprost, and these drugs did not appear to have a dose-dependent effect. Two additional prostaglandin analogues, latanoprostene bunod and travoprost, showed no apparent impact on tracer recovery when inhaled intranasally. Latanoprost, when given in daily doses for 3 days, showed a sustained ability to increase tracer recovery even several hours after the last dose was administered.

Prior work with pharmacologic agents introduced into the nasal cavities of sheep by nebulization showed an increase in CSF outflow as measured by an intracranial pressure monitoring system by which fluid was infused into the lateral ventricle and the resulting pressure changes assessed [10]. In this system, it was calculated that a 2.29-fold to 2.44 fold increase in CSF outflow was achieved with the use of either NG-monomethyl L-arginine or U46619, a thromboxane A2 analogue. Interestingly, while the latter agent increases lymphatic contractility, the former inhibits nitric oxide synthesis and causes smooth muscle relaxation, and the authors postulated that an increased calibre of the lymphatic channels might allow greater passive flow along a pressure gradient in some instances [10].

The relative contribution of nasal lymphatic drainage to overall CSF outflow has not been determined in humans. In both sheep and rat models, injection of a radiolabelled tracer into the CSF with recovery from lymphatic and other sources suggests that at least 50% of normal CSF drainage in awake animals may occur via the lymphatic system [15, 16]. Additionally, induced communicating hydrocephalus in a rodent model is associated with reduced CSF lymphatic outflow along the olfactory and nasal mucosal pathways [6].

We observed that latanoprost had a stronger effect on CSF tracer recovery than did other prostaglandin F2alpha analogues. Prior studies have shown a variable effect of different pharmacologic agents of the same class on vascular contractility. The isoprostane 8-epi-PGF2alpha has a more potent effect on lymphatic channels than does U46619 [11], and application of U46619, PGF2alpha itself, and latanoprost had a significantly greater effect on porcine ciliary artery constriction than did travoprost [17]. Latanoprost also causes increased lymphatic outflow from the eye in mice [18], and a diminished effect of latanoprost on intraocular pressure has been observed in humans who have undergone surgical ligation of cervical lymphatics for cancer treatment [19]. However, the relative effect of other PGF2alpha analogues on ocular lymphatic drainage has not been reported.

In conclusion, we found that a single nasal inhalation of the PGF2alpha analogue latanoprost resulted in an increased recovery of a CSF tracer from nasal mucosa, indicating greater passage of CSF through olfactory lymphatic channels, with a weaker effect seen with bimatoprost and tafluprost. We found multiday dosing also had a sustained effect even several hours after nasal inhalation of drug. Further study is needed to assess the local effect on nasal mucosa from acute and chronic application of latanoprost solutions and to determine its tolerability in humans, although experience with conjunctival application would indicate low risk of adverse events [12]. Based on ocular studies [18], we anticipate that lymphatic activity induced by latanoprost would persist and not diminish over time. If the drug can be used intranasally on a chronic basis, it may be a useful therapeutic agent for humans with disorders of ICP elevation.

Supporting information

S1 Data

(XLSX)

S2 Data

(XLSX)

S3 Data

(XLSX)

S4 Data

(XLSX)

S5 Data

(XLSX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported in part by an unrestricted grant to the University of Colorado Department of Ophthalmology from Research to Prevent Blindness, Inc. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bothwell SW, Janigro D, Patabendige A. Cerebrospinal fluid dynamics and intracranial pressure elevation in neurological diseases. Fluids Barriers Cns. 2019;16(1):9. doi: 10.1186/s12987-019-0129-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Tsutsumi S, Ogino I, Miyajima M, Nakamura M, Yasumoto Y, Arai H, et al. Cranial Arachnoid Protrusions and Contiguous Diploic Veins in CSF Drainage. Am J Neuroradiol [Internet]. 2014. Sep;35(9):1735–9. Available from: http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=24948506&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Pahlavian SH, Yiallourou T, Tubbs RS, Bunck AC, Loth F, Goodin M, et al. The Impact of Spinal Cord Nerve Roots and Denticulate Ligaments on Cerebrospinal Fluid Dynamics in the Cervical Spine. Plos One. 2014;9(4):e91888. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091888 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kida S, Pantazis A, Weller RO. CSF drains directly from the subarachnoid space into nasal lymphatics in the rat. Anatomy, histology and immunological significance. Neuropath Appl Neuro. 1993;19(6):480–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2990.1993.tb00476.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Boulton M, Young A, Hay J, Armstrong D, Flessner M, Schwartz M, et al. Drainage of CSF through lymphatic pathways and arachnoid villi in sheep: measurement of 125I-albumin clearance. Neuropathology and applied neurobiology. 1996. Aug;22(4):325–333. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2990.1996.tb01111.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Nagra G, Li J, McAllister JP, Miller J, Wagshul M, Johnston M. Impaired lymphatic cerebrospinal fluid absorption in a rat model of kaolin-induced communicating hydrocephalus. American journal of physiology Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology. 2008;294(5):R1752–9. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.00748.2007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Ahn JH, Cho H, Kim J-H, Kim SH, Ham J-S, Park I, et al. Meningeal lymphatic vessels at the skull base drain cerebrospinal fluid. Nature. 2019;572(7767):62–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1419-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Koh L, Nagra G, Johnston M. Properties of the Lymphatic Cerebrospinal Fluid Transport System in the Rat: Impact of Elevated Intracranial Pressure. J Vasc Res. 2007;44(5):423–32. doi: 10.1159/000104255 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Dave SB, Subramanian PS. Pseudotumor cerebri: An update on treatment options. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014. Oct;62(10):996–8. doi: 10.4103/0301-4738.145991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kim H, Moore SA, Johnston MG. Potential for intranasal drug delivery to alter cerebrospinal fluid outflow via the nasal turbinate lymphatics. Fluids Barriers Cns. 2014. Feb 15;11(1):4. doi: 10.1186/2045-8118-11-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sinzinger H, Oguogho A, Kaliman J. Isoprostane 8-epi-prostaglandin F2 alpha is a potent contractor of human peripheral lymphatics. Lymphology. 1997;30(3):155–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Staso SD, Agnifili L, Cecannecchia S, Gregorio AD, Ciancaglini M. In Vivo Analysis of Prostaglandins-induced Ocular Surface and Periocular Adnexa Modifications in Patients with Glaucoma. In Vivo. 2018;32(2):211–20. doi: 10.21873/invivo.11227 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hanson LR, Fine JM, Svitak AL, Faltesek KA. Intranasal Administration of CNS Therapeutics to Awake Mice. J Vis Exp. 2013;(74). doi: 10.3791/4440 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.DeVos SL, Miller TM. Direct Intraventricular Delivery of Drugs to the Rodent Central Nervous System. J Vis Exp Jove. 2013;(75):50326. doi: 10.3791/50326 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Boulton M, Flessner M, Armstrong D, Mohamed R, Hay J, Johnston M. Contribution of extracranial lymphatics and arachnoid villi to the clearance of a CSF tracer in the rat. Am J Physiology-regulatory Integr Comp Physiology. 1999;276(3):R818–23. doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.1999.276.3.R818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boulton M, Flessner M, Armstrong D, Hay J, Johnston M. Lymphatic drainage of the CNS: effects of lymphatic diversion/ligation on CSF protein transport to plasma. Am J Physiology-regulatory Integr Comp Physiology. 1997;272(5):R1613–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vysniauskiene I, Allemann R, Flammer J, Haefliger IO. Vasoactive Responses of U46619, PGF2α, Latanoprost, and Travoprost in Isolated Porcine Ciliary Arteries. Invest Ophth Vis Sci. 2006;47(1):295–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Tam ALC, Gupta N, Zhang Z, Yücel YH. Latanoprost Stimulates Ocular Lymphatic Drainage: An In Vivo Nanotracer Study. Transl Vis Sci Technology [Internet]. 2013. Aug;2(5):3–3. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24049723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kim YK, Na KI, Jeoung JW, Park KH. Intraocular Pressure-Lowering Effect of Latanoprost Is Hampered by Defective Cervical Lymphatic Drainage. Acott TS, editor. Plos One. 2017;12(1):e0169683. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0169683 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Francesco Lolli

17 Jun 2021

PONE-D-21-06439

Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Subramanian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Lolli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments:

The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions. However both reviewer had major comments, and some involve additional data requested

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. PLOS ONE has specific criteria regarding the reporting of animal research (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research). Specifically, these guidelines require that details regarding care, monitoring, and method of sacrifice are clearly stated. To that effect, please include the following in your Methods section:

- A description of the animals' housing conditions, including food/water, temperature, and lighting conditions

- How animals were monitored for health and behavior throughout the study, and the timeline of the study protocol

As part of your revision, please complete and submit a copy of the ARRIVE Guidelines checklist, a document that aims to improve experimental reporting and reproducibility of animal studies for purposes of post-publication data analysis and reproducibility: https://arriveguidelines.org/sites/arrive/files/Author%20Checklist%20-%20Full.pdf. Please include your completed checklist as a Supporting Information file. Note that if your paper is accepted for publication, this checklist will be published as part of your article.

Thank you for your attention. We look forward to hearing from you.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this article, nasal delivery of prostaglandin analogues boosted nasal recovery of a CSF fluorescent tracer, implying enhanced CSF outflow via the nasal lymphatics. Latanoprost had the most substantial impact and dose-dependent. These medicines may help lower ICP.

Some section of the article needs a better presentation.

The statistic section describes "Student's t-tests and ANOVA RM with Dunnet's post hoc analysis". It is not informative and should be expanded, referring to preplanned methods.

The results refer to Fig.2 and Fig. 3, but it is not clear how the asterisk refers to the difference between the groups in which specific test.

Fig legends refer more to methods than results.

Fig. 1a and 1b should show the area of interest. Please indicate the signals within the ventricle and the injection track (Fig.1A) and the control ventricles with no staining (Fig.1B).

Reviewer #2: The authors investigated the ability of ophthalmic prostaglandin F2alpha analogs to increase CSF outflow when applied to the nasal mucosa by inhalation. The idea behind this work is that no medications are available that will increase CSF outflow, and the olfactory lymphatics provide an accessible target for such a treatment. The authors utilized commercially available PGF2alpha analogues (latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, latanoprostene bunod, and tafluprost) that are widely used in the treatment of open angle glaucoma.

The main results is that a single nasal inhalation of the PGF2alpha analogue latanoprost resulted in an increased recovery of a CSF tracer from nasal mucosa, that suggested an increased passage of CSF through olfactory lymphatic channels, a little effect was seen with bimatoprost and tafluprost.

The work is technically well done and well executed and data obtained are very promising. The identification of compounds with the potential to increase CSF outflow is of great interest. However, it is surprising that the authors fell short of performing additional experiments to validate their important observation. Indeed, time course experiments to pinpoint the duration of a single (or even more important) repeated dose regimen are missing. Also, in my opinion it is vital to address the effects of these prostaglandin analogs on the nasal mucosa such as morphology and cell infiltrate.

In summary, this work is a nice piece of science portraying extremely interesting preliminary results but that requires additional work to be accepted for publication

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 31;16(12):e0248545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248545.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


26 Sep 2021

Dear Dr. Lolli:

We thank you and the reviewers for your comments and suggestions to improve our manuscript. We have made the following changes and offer our responses to these comments below:

Reviewer 1

In this article, nasal delivery of prostaglandin analogues boosted nasal recovery of a CSF fluorescent tracer, implying enhanced CSF outflow via the nasal lymphatics. Latanoprost had the most substantial impact and dose-dependent. These medicines may help lower ICP.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your comments and your review.

Some section of the article needs a better presentation.

The statistic section describes "Student's t-tests and ANOVA RM with Dunnet's post hoc analysis". It is not informative and should be expanded, referring to preplanned methods.

RESPONSE: We have revised the final paragraph of the Methods section (lines 109-114 of the tracked changes version) to provide additional statistical information as requested.

The results refer to Fig.2 and Fig. 3, but it is not clear how the asterisk refers to the difference between the groups in which specific test.

RESPONSE: We have provided clarification regarding the meaning of the asterisks in the Figure legends; comparisons in each instance are between the specific drug/dose and controls unless otherwise indicated.

Fig legends refer more to methods than results.

RESPONSE: Figure legends have been rewritten to more appropriately reflect and describe the results and no longer contain methodologic information.

Fig. 1a and 1b should show the area of interest. Please indicate the signals within the ventricle and the injection track (Fig.1A) and the control ventricles with no staining (Fig.1B).

RESPONSE: Asterisks and arrows have been added to direct the reader’s attention to the fluorescent signal in the ventricle and the injection track, respectively.

Reviewer 2

The authors investigated the ability of ophthalmic prostaglandin F2alpha analogs to increase CSF outflow when vapplied to the nasal mucosa by inhalation. The idea behind this work is that no medications are available that will increase CSF outflow, and the olfactory lymphatics provide an accessible target for such a treatment. The authors utilized commercially available PGF2alpha analogues (latanoprost, bimatoprost, travoprost, latanoprostene bunod, and tafluprost) that are widely used in the treatment of open angle glaucoma.

The main results is that a single nasal inhalation of the PGF2alpha analogue latanoprost resulted in an increased recovery of a CSF tracer from nasal mucosa, that suggested an increased passage of CSF through olfactory lymphatic channels, a little effect was seen with bimatoprost and tafluprost.

RESPONSE: Thank you for your review and your very helpful comments.

The work is technically well done and well executed and data obtained are very promising. The identification of compounds with the potential to increase CSF outflow is of great interest. However, it is surprising that the authors fell short of performing additional experiments to validate their important observation. Indeed, time course experiments to pinpoint the duration of a single (or even more important) repeated dose regimen are missing.

RESPONSE: We appreciate this recommendation to look at duration of effect of dosing. As you noted, multiple dose/multiday dosing would reflect real-life use of a medication. Therefore, we undertook additional experiments with latanoprost only (given that it showed the greatest effect with single dosing) and found a sustained effect upon CSF drainage via the lymphatic pathways (new Figure 4 and text lines 164-181).

Also, in my opinion it is vital to address the effects of these prostaglandin analogs on the nasal mucosa such as morphology and cell infiltrate.

RESPONSE: The effect upon latanoprost and other prostaglandin analogues on the ocular/conjunctival mucosa has been studied extensively during pre-clinical and clinical studies. No concerning findings with respect to inflammation or cellular infiltrates were identified. These drugs are known to cause slight conjunctival hyperemia and other changes to goblet cells that are of no functional consequence. With limited research resources and a need to prioritize the most salient experiments because of COVID-19 pandemic-related restrictions on laboratory usage and capacity, we respectfully submit that the existing data on mucosal effects of prostaglandin analogues should be sufficient to allay any concerns regarding safety and tolerability when applied to the nasal mucosa, a tissue with similar properties. We have added a statement about the known effects of these substances on the mucosal surface (Lines 72-73) and included a new reference (12).

In summary, this work is a nice piece of science portraying extremely interesting preliminary results but that requires additional work to be accepted for publication

RESPONSE: We thank the reviewer again for the very helpful suggestions to improve the impact of our work.

Additional Editor Comments

The manuscript is technically sound, and the data do support the conclusions. However both reviewer had major comments, and some involve additional data requested

RESPONSE: We believe we have addressed the requests for changes and additional data that the reviewers have helpfully suggested.

Sincerely yours,

Prem S. Subramanian, MD, PhD

Professor of Ophthalmology, Neurology, and Neurosurgery

Vice Chair for Academic Affairs

Division Head, Neuro-Ophthalmology

Attachment

Submitted filename: CSF drainage rebuttal letter PLoS ONE.docx

Decision Letter 1

Francesco Lolli

14 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-06439R1Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosaPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Subramanian,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewing the new versions of the  manuscript entitled “Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa”  the points raised by the reviewers were considered and responded to. The manuscript is accordingly improved.

In the present revision we noticed that certain details of animal experimental techniques, particularly a description of care/monitoring information, are absent or insufficiently described from the methods.They should be introduced.

The requests for animal reasearch are found in https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research  

 Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 28 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Francesco Lolli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewing the new versions of the manuscript entitled “Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa” the points raised by the reviewers were considered and responded to. The manuscript is accordingly improved.

In the present revision we noticed that certain details of animal experimental techniques, particularly a description of care/monitoring information, are absent or insufficiently described from the methods.They should be introduced.

The requests for animal reasearch are found in https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-animal-research

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Dec 31;16(12):e0248545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248545.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


2 Nov 2021

Francesco Lolli, MD, PhD

Academic Editor

PLoS ONE

Dear Dr. Lolli:

We thank you and the reviewers for your additional comments and suggestions to bring the manuscript within the PLoS ONE guidelines. We have made the following changes and offer our responses to these comments below:

Comment: Reviewing the new versions of the manuscript entitled “Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa” the points raised by the reviewers were considered and responded to. The manuscript is accordingly improved.

RESPONSE: Thank you very much.

In the present revision we noticed that certain details of animal experimental techniques, particularly a description of care/monitoring information, are absent or insufficiently described from the methods. They should be introduced.

RESPONSE: We have added more specific information describing the care and monitoring of the animals and trust that these details will fulfill the requirements (lines 69-74 and 91-92 in the tracked changes version). We used a recent article in PLoS ONE (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247149) as a model after reviewing overall requirements.

Thank you again for consideration of our work.

Sincerely yours,

Prem S. Subramanian, MD, PhD

Professor of Ophthalmology, Neurology, and Neurosurgery

Vice Chair for Academic Affairs

Division Head, Neuro-Ophthalmology

Attachment

Submitted filename: CSF drainage rebuttal letter PLoS ONE.docx

Decision Letter 2

Francesco Lolli

8 Nov 2021

Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa

PONE-D-21-06439R2

Dear Dr. Subramanian,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Francesco Lolli, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The authors added more specific information describing the animals' care and monitoring. They did meet the requirements.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Francesco Lolli

23 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-06439R2

Prostaglandin analog effects on cerebrospinal fluid reabsorption via nasal mucosa

Dear Dr. Subramanian:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Francesco Lolli

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data

    (XLSX)

    S3 Data

    (XLSX)

    S4 Data

    (XLSX)

    S5 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: CSF drainage rebuttal letter PLoS ONE.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: CSF drainage rebuttal letter PLoS ONE.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES